Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the State of Punjab to grant them a pre-mature increment. The petitioners contended that they did not participate in the strike observed by Punjab Government employees on February 8, 1978, as they were on leave. They argued that other employees had been granted similar relief, thus seeking equal treatment. The State's counsel referred to a Full Bench decision in Saroj Kumari v. State of Punjab, which established that individuals on leave during a strike are not entitled to the benefit of a pre-mature increment. The court reviewed the relevant judgment and concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought based on the legal precedent. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The decision was rendered by Justice Ranjit Singh on July 19, 2011.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Pre-Mature Increment - Entitlement to Increment During Strike - Punjab Government Employees - Petitioners sought pre-mature increment claiming non-participation in a strike while on leave. Court held that the benefit of pre-mature increment cannot be granted to those on leave during the strike, referencing the Full Bench decision in Saroj Kumari v. State of Punjab. The writ petition was dismissed accordingly. (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a pre-mature increment despite not participating in the strike.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed as the court found that the petitioners were not entitled to the pre-mature increment based on the established legal precedent.
Law Points
- Writ of mandamus
- pre-mature increment
- strike participation
- leave during strike
